Friday prayers held in parts of pakistan amid strict lockdown

[Nilgiri]

On the issue of guns we are different planets.

I have half a mind to start a what if thread for Indians later

What if our army falls and the armed hordes of Pakistan stream into India.

What sort of planning do we need?

Training. Logistics. Mobilization.

Most of us at max would have knives, sticks, hockeys, rods, and a couple of swords at home.

Maybe this is a program the RSS and HMS need to look into.

@aryadravida @Smarana Mitra @Nilu Pule @jamahir @Sultan Aibak @xeuss @Axomiya_lora @Joe Shearer @jbgt90 @prashantazazel @GHALIB @Jugger @Nilgiri

And knowledgeable Pakistanis

@SIPRA @Socra @DESERT FIGHTER @lastofthepatriots

Are you becoming pro 2nd amendment for India?

 

[padamchen]

Are you becoming pro 2nd amendment for India?

I just want some ideas.

 

[Nilgiri]

I just want some ideas.

Let me poke @Joe Shearer on what he thinks first. I'm actually curious to see.

I am far more idealistic (from the individual's perspective/choice/right on this) on the defined/logical role of govt/nation state by application of chronology (i.e individual rights pre-existed formation of whatever political entity/govt and even civilisation...and thus cannot be taken away by the latter).

This (fundamental right) to me includes the rights to self defense of the individual. Then it becomes how far you want to argue that. Would intrinsically well-armed jewish populations (full scaling up of say what we saw in the warsaw ghetto only far later) in Eastern Europe have made an insufferable toll on activites of the einsatzgruppen and the final solution that would come later?

Even without this fundamental enshrinement in any other country outside the US, the americans ironically saw it applied to them.... when nearly each domination patrol or air cavalry insertion...the trees and blades of grass spoke vietnamese....no occupier can really persist "organically" among the occupied in the end. If a nation truly believes in itself and is made of the firmest ethereal stuff...it will see its existence through.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

You're a smart guy.

We are best with our rods and swords.

It was a rhetorical question.

From a citizen of a country where it's rare to see a weapon in the hands of anyone other than a soldier or a police officer.

Pistols and revolvers, if ever. Always concealed.

So you really think there are no guns with people? Guns were let loose in muzaffarnagar riot last time to show a sample. Nevertheless, guns are always kept hidden under store room. Guns are not to be used now unless situation is dire as world is run by petroleum and technology. No army can invade India as no army the the logistics. Even if indian army is suspended, there will still be difficulty in invading as the enemies don't have enough vehicles or fuel. Roads can ve blocked and enemies starved or made to run out of ammunition. India has the capability to manufacture enough funds for all its people in a matter of months. Indian industry is awesome

 

[padamchen]

Let me poke @Joe Shearer on what he thinks first. I'm actually curious to see.

I am far more idealistic (from the individual's perspective/choice/right on this) on the defined/logical role of govt/nation state by application of chronology (i.e individual rights pre-existed formation of whatever political entity/govt and even civilisation...and thus cannot be taken away by the latter).

This (fundamental right) to me includes the rights to self defense of the individual. Then it becomes how far you want to argue that. Would intrinsically well-armed jewish populations (full scaling up of say what we saw in the warsaw ghetto only far later) in Eastern Europe have made an insufferable toll on activites of the einsatzgruppen and the final solution that would come later?

Even without this fundamental enshrinement in any other country outside the US, the americans ironically saw it applied to them.... when nearly each domination patrol or air cavalry insertion...the trees and blades of grass spoke vietnamese....no occupier can really persist "organically" among the occupied in the end. If a nation truly believes in itself and is made of the firmest ethereal stuff...it will see its existence through.

Do you want all Indians having guns?

Including Muslims?

So you really think there are no guns with people? Guns were let loose in muzaffarnagar riot last time to show a sample. Nevertheless, guns are always kept hidden under store room. Guns are not to be used now unless situation is dire as world is run by petroleum and technology. No army can invade India as no army the the logistics. Even if indian army is suspended, there will still be difficulty in invading as the enemies don't have enough vehicles or fuel. Roads can ve blocked and enemies starved or made to run out of ammunition. India has the capability to manufacture enough funds for all its people in a matter of months. Indian industry is awesome

How many Indians have guns hidden under storerooms?

You are talking about local riots.

I am talking about a scenario like Kashmir 1947.

With a broken scattered army.

Let me poke @Joe Shearer on what he thinks first. I'm actually curious to see.

I am far more idealistic (from the individual's perspective/choice/right on this) on the defined/logical role of govt/nation state by application of chronology (i.e individual rights pre-existed formation of whatever political entity/govt and even civilisation...and thus cannot be taken away by the latter).

This (fundamental right) to me includes the rights to self defense of the individual. Then it becomes how far you want to argue that. Would intrinsically well-armed jewish populations (full scaling up of say what we saw in the warsaw ghetto only far later) in Eastern Europe have made an insufferable toll on activites of the einsatzgruppen and the final solution that would come later?

Even without this fundamental enshrinement in any other country outside the US, the americans ironically saw it applied to them.... when nearly each domination patrol or air cavalry insertion...the trees and blades of grass spoke vietnamese....no occupier can really persist "organically" among the occupied in the end. If a nation truly believes in itself and is made of the firmest ethereal stuff...it will see its existence through.

Indians by that analogy had few if any rights leading into 1947 and the creation of India from the precursor state of British India.

They surely did not have the right to bear arms.

The last time Indians had the right to bear arms would have been 1750s.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

How many Indians have guns hidden under storerooms?

You are talking about local riots.

I am talking about a scenario like Kashmir 1947.

With a broken scattered army.

Do you know that RSS keeps guns in storeroom for area defence? How do you think RSS offers protection to muslim who converted to Hinduism after marriage? These guns went loose in muzaffarnagar.

Secondly, no country can fight without industrial power. Just using the already manufactured guns is not how it works. In Kashmir, muslims conquered those places where Muslims were in majority. Even Hari Singh had armed soldiers but the might of muslim mobs were too great for soldiers to stop due to their massive numbers.

Guns are useful for containing and eliminating local jihadis who are in huge numbers. But it isn't enough to conquer or fight back invasion if industry is non functional. In wars, less than 1% bullets hit the target as lot of firing is for preventive reason. No one can sustain a war without industrial capabilities.

 

[Nilgiri]

Do you want all Indians having guns?

Including Muslims?

Does an Indian citizen have the right to self defense?

We are a secular country, religion should not enter the picture.

But theory does have limits in real world....just like everyone is not vested equally in the nation in real life...and we know some are against it altogether (though the nation bequeaths them nationality and the rights like any other).

India (current political set up) also inherited a "top down" situation mostly....and carries a certain issue or two historically that weighs on its national idealism too (partition certainly took its toll on it). As a country India is very unique in its current sociopolitical crystallization....I would argue more than any other country in the world.

So to begin with, not a very practical or comparable situation compared to US (that I was bringing up for a reference point solely, given their similar overall value for democracy, republican ideals and large landmass +population) that had a close bound for nation starting out (and simply did not include many living souls in the area under the nation)...and then over time expanded coverage to everyone either gently or through fits and bursts...as the nation "enlightened" on what a citizen is. Very different historical and cultural chart to India as you know.

In short, no particular setup of people should be exclusively armed (by inherent constitutional right) over another setup....if the state itself does not base itself on one of those setups exclusively (and no state ever should if you ask me).

So I'd be fine with muslims having guns if everyone else does too, they are all citizens of India....and the nation should have no fear or favour to any group. If muslims cant have guns, no one else gets to either as an inherent right.

If the nation does not trust this concept (by say some polling/referendum) in some minority having arms too if the majority gets it...... it should obviously not proceed with enshrining the right at all. You simply do not truly believe in a right unless you argue for the same right for everyone in a nation by default.

Either everyone gets the same right, or no one does. Latter case, the state for its larger protection has the military and law enforcement for the interior security....and each citizen should be equivalently stripped of personal individual defense (regd firearms). If you go for former right, every citizen (after meeting certain standards again imposed by the state in a fair non-exclusive way...much like a driving license) that wants to, can arm himself/herself with firearms reasonably. Practical rules can be put/scaled for the "reasonably" part...again that would be a debate.

If its case of bending things or hiding things around the edges of nation's constitutional law, then thats another story too. Thats slippery slope to discuss tbh.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Another chottu gang probably.
Tumhari zubaan mein dawood ibrahim ya koi aur gangster.

View attachment 624377
you notice that man with a gun in his hand?is he a police or a soldier?he isnt looking like one

 

[padamchen]

Do you know that RSS keeps guns in storeroom for area defence? How do you think RSS offers protection to muslim who converted to Hinduism after marriage? These guns went loose in muzaffarnagar.

Secondly, no country can fight without industrial power. Just using the already manufactured guns is not how it works. In Kashmir, muslims conquered those places where Muslims were in majority. Even Hari Singh had armed soldiers but the might of muslim mobs were too great for soldiers to stop due to their massive numbers.

Guns are useful for containing and eliminating local jihadis who are in huge numbers. But it isn't enough to conquer or fight back invasion if industry is non functional. In wars, less than 1% bullets hit the target as lot of firing is for preventive reason. No one can sustain a war without industrial capabilities.

So the guns are not with individuals under their store rooms, but with centralised shakhas?

Looking at our population density, even fir a small kasba in Poona, that would have to be a huge store room.

If you start making guns and ammunition when you are being overrun, you're already overrun.

Once you're overrun, so is your industrial complex without populace protection.

Does an Indian citizen have the right to self defense?

We are a secular country, religion should not enter the picture.

But theory does have limits in real world....just like everyone is not vested equally in the nation in real life...and we know some are against it altogether (though the nation bequeaths them nationality and the rights like any other).

India (current political set up) also inherited a "top down" situation mostly....and carries a certain issue or two historically that weighs on its national idealism too (partition certainly took its toll on it). As a country India is very unique in its current sociopolitical crystallization....I would argue more than any other country in the world.

So to begin with, not a very practical or comparable situation compared to US (that I was bringing up for a reference point solely, given their similar overall value for democracy, republican ideals and large landmass +population) that had a close bound for nation starting out (and simply did not include many living souls in the area under the nation)...and then over time expanded coverage to everyone either gently or through fits and bursts...as the nation "enlightened" on what a citizen is. Very different historical and cultural chart to India as you know.

In short, no particular setup of people should be exclusively armed (by inherent constitutional right) over another setup....if the state itself does not base itself on one of those setups exclusively (and no state ever should if you ask me).

So I'd be fine with muslims having guns if everyone else does too, they are all citizens of India....and the nation should have no fear or favour to any group. If muslims cant have guns, no one else gets to either as an inherent right.

If the nation does not trust this concept (by say some polling/referendum) in some minority having arms too if the majority gets it...... it should obviously not proceed with enshrining the right at all. You simply do not truly believe in a right unless you argue for the same right for everyone in a nation by default.

Either everyone gets the same right, or no one does. Latter case, the state for its larger protection has the military and law enforcement for the interior security....and each citizen should be equivalently stripped of personal individual defense (regd firearms). If you go for former right, every citizen (after meeting certain standards again imposed by the state in a fair non-exclusive way...much like a driving license) that wants to, can arm himself/herself with firearms reasonably. Practical rules can be put/scaled for the "reasonably" part...again that would be a debate.

If its case of bending things or hiding things around the edges of nation's constitutional law, then thats another story too. Thats slippery slope to discuss tbh.

Too theoretical, safe, and US-centric.

No offense.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let me poke @Joe Shearer on what he thinks first. I'm actually curious to see.

:o

I am far more idealistic (from the individual's perspective/choice/right on this) on the defined/logical role of govt/nation state by application of chronology (i.e individual rights pre-existed formation of whatever political entity/govt and even civilisation...and thus cannot be taken away by the latter).

Political entities, governments and civilisation itself exist only due to the individual giving up his and her rights to the collective: the tribe, presumably, at first, thereafter, the tribal chieftain, then the king, then the personification of the king as the state, and so on.

Once surrendered, presumably voluntarily, the situation cannot be reversed, except by extraordinary distortions of constitutional privilege. We descend into the NRA position, into the right to self-defence of the individual, and into the tiresome discussion about the relative safety of life in the UK and in the US.

This (fundamental right) to me includes the rights to self defense of the individual. Then it becomes how far you want to argue that. Would intrinsically well-armed jewish populations (full scaling up of say what we saw in the warsaw ghetto only far later) in Eastern Europe have made an insufferable toll on activites of the einsatzgruppen and the final solution that would come later?

This is, cynically speaking, a matter to be decided only by final victory. I could elaborate on that: Hungary 1848 shows that a citizenry in arms is not bound to prevail, and if it doesn't, it suffers all the consequences of the Romans suffering the Gauls in the Capitol - vae victis. If it does prevail, as did the Swiss Confederacy, then it serves as a facile and misleading example of the reality of the reversibility of individual rights. That is not a reality, that is an illusion.

Even without this fundamental enshrinement in any other country outside the US, the americans ironically saw it applied to them.... when nearly each domination patrol or air cavalry insertion...the trees and blades of grass spoke vietnamese....no occupier can really persist "organically" among the occupied in the end. If a nation truly believes in itself and is made of the firmest ethereal stuff...it will see its existence through.

A military failure should not be equated to a political axiom.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Does an Indian citizen have the right to self defense?

We are a secular country, religion should not enter the picture.

But theory does have limits in real world....just like everyone is not vested equally in the nation in real life...and we know some are against it altogether (though the nation bequeaths them nationality and the rights like any other).

India (current political set up) also inherited a "top down" situation mostly....and carries a certain issue or two historically that weighs on its national idealism too (partition certainly took its toll on it). As a country India is very unique in its current sociopolitical crystallization....I would argue more than any other country in the world.

So to begin with, not a very practical or comparable situation compared to US (that I was bringing up for a reference point solely, given their similar overall value for democracy, republican ideals and large landmass +population) that had a close bound for nation starting out (and simply did not include many living souls in the area under the nation)...and then over time expanded coverage to everyone either gently or through fits and bursts...as the nation "enlightened" on what a citizen is. Very different historical and cultural chart to India as you know.

In short, no particular setup of people should be exclusively armed (by inherent constitutional right) over another setup....if the state itself does not base itself on one of those setups exclusively (and no state ever should if you ask me).

So I'd be fine with muslims having guns if everyone else does too, they are all citizens of India....and the nation should have no fear or favour to any group. If muslims cant have guns, no one else gets to either as an inherent right.

If the nation does not trust this concept (by say some polling/referendum) in some minority having arms too if the majority gets it...... it should obviously not proceed with enshrining the right at all. You simply do not truly believe in a right unless you argue for the same right for everyone in a nation by default.

Either everyone gets the same right, or no one does. Latter case, the state for its larger protection has the military and law enforcement for the interior security....and each citizen should be equivalently stripped of personal individual defense (regd firearms). If you go for former right, every citizen (after meeting certain standards again imposed by the state in a fair non-exclusive way...much like a driving license) that wants to, can arm himself/herself with firearms reasonably. Practical rules can be put/scaled for the "reasonably" part...again that would be a debate.

If its case of bending things or hiding things around the edges of nation's constitutional law, then thats another story too. Thats slippery slope to discuss tbh.

What nonsense is this? Do you even know what citizen means? Secondly, India is not a full fledged nation as it never had the capability to make itself one due to huge internal and external problem regarding food and arms. So, the idea that everyone who lives on a piece of land is equal is absurd and arbitrary. Constitution is just a book written by a bunch of people and has no more inherent value than harry potter book

So the guns are not with individuals under their store rooms, but with centralised shakhas?

Looking at our population density, even fir a small kasba in Poona, that would have to be a huge store room.

If you start making guns and ammunition when you are being overrun, you're already overrun.

Guns are to be made according to requirement. It menas the enemy capabilities have to be considered. So, for Pune, even a medium sized arsenal of 5000 guns should be enough for most practical purposes.

Secondly, manufacturing guns is not hard and it takes time to be overrun. No one van overrun India in less than 6 months in the least as none has the required arms and logistics to do it. Even 1 month time is enough to manufacture arms enmasse and distribute it. Guns will be manufactured when the war geta intense. Every factory making cars and machines will be used for making guns. India can manufacture guns at the rate of 1 crore per month if things come to that. But think for yourself whether it will be practical to already have guns in the open in that huge quantities when there is no war? The amount of ammunition, manpower and fuel consumption will be ao large that it will be impractical. Moreover, the bullet rounds have shelf life and on expiring tend to jam the guns. The guns also rust and need to be cleaned regularly which will cause even more problems.

It is best that guns are kept in centralised location with trustworthy people to be used when needed. And more manufacturing be kept ready. Indians already have Khattas in large quantities. At least 5 crore khattas are in India by an estimate. Big guns are bit more tricky in terms of sabotage probability.

 

[Nilgiri]

:o



Political entities, governments and civilisation itself exist only due to the individual giving up his and her rights to the collective: the tribe, presumably, at first, thereafter, the tribal chieftain, then the king, then the personification of the king as the state, and so on.

Once surrendered, presumably voluntarily, the situation cannot be reversed, except by extraordinary distortions of constitutional privilege. We descend into the NRA position, into the right to self-defence of the individual, and into the tiresome discussion about the relative safety of life in the UK and in the US.



This is, cynically speaking, a matter to be decided only by final victory. I could elaborate on that: Hungary 1848 shows that a citizenry in arms is not bound to prevail, and if it doesn't, it suffers all the consequences of the Romans suffering the Gauls in the Capitol - vae victis. If it does prevail, as did the Swiss Confederacy, then it serves as a facile and misleading example of the reality of the reversibility of individual rights. That is not a reality, that is an illusion.



A military failure should not be equated to a political axiom.

Yes I am well aware of your position w.r.t my position hehe. We will have to agree to disagree on lot of those matters.

I am staunch individualist as the default position...as without sounding too Cartesian....I exist as an individual.

If we were a different kind of organism altogether that can exist as collective first, then there is strong case to be made for the collective being the default position.

It is simply thus my approach to use chronology and individual rights as the first principles basis and logic and then community needs evolve on top of that (without violating what is set at the base).

Anyways, I was more interested in poking you about what you think are appropriate suggestions for what Doc was enquiring in India's case...with these "militia" ideas.

He is asking me if I am comfortable with muslims having guns/being well armed as community... ...

You see where the sound logic idealism must be robust for a proper constitution for a nation? The other possibility is its not a proper nation at all esp. w.r.t its purported setup.

A country (IMO) can ill-afford extra-judicial or extra-constitutional exceptions (past thought exercises and associated speech...and lot of people, my countrymen, take issue with even that as you know), esp on identity politics basis.

 

[padamchen]

What nonsense is this? Do you even know what citizen means? Secondly, India is not a full fledged nation as it never had the capability to make itself one due to huge internal and external problem regarding food and arms. So, the idea that everyone who lives on a piece of land is equal is absurd and arbitrary. Constitution is just a book written by a bunch of people and has no more inherent value than harry potter book


Guns are to be made according to requirement. It menas the enemy capabilities have to be considered. So, for Pune, even a medium sized arsenal of 5000 guns should be enough for most practical purposes.

Secondly, manufacturing guns is not hard and it takes time to be overrun. No one van overrun India in less than 6 months in the least as none has the required arms and logistics to do it. Even 1 month time is enough to manufacture arms enmasse and distribute it. Guns will be manufactured when the war geta intense. Every factory making cars and machines will be used for making guns. India can manufacture guns at the rate of 1 crore per month if things come to that. But think for yourself whether it will be practical to already have guns in the open in that huge quantities when there is no war? The amount of ammunition, manpower and fuel consumption will be ao large that it will be impractical. Moreover, the bullet rounds have shelf life and on expiring tend to jam the guns. The guns also rust and need to be cleaned regularly which will cause even more problems.

It is best that guns are kept in centralised location with trustworthy people to be used when needed. And more manufacturing be kept ready. Indians already have Khattas in large quantities. At least 5 crore khattas are in India by an estimate. Big guns are bit more tricky in terms of sabotage probability.

Some points.

Poona and PCMC together is now blowing on 10 million. Which means around 3+ million military age men. At least.

You want to arm us with 5000 guns?

The opening scene of Stalingrad in Enemy at the Gates comes to mind.

You think it's easy making guns. India is yet to produce a decent sidearm for our infantry.

Not go mention tooling, dyes, material, powder, casings etc. are not something you can put in place in weeks, even months. Have you ever worked in a large scale factory environment?

Thirdly training. You cannot just give guns in the hands of untrained men and expect a semblance of effectiveness when facing hardened raiders who cut their milk teeth on guns.

A lot of your thinking and arguments are typically what I read on right wing silos with regard to our own Muslims.

That is an undeniable threat. I am not here to deny or wish that away.

But my threat perception here is of the armed populace of Muslims next door. In a post apocalyptic scenario. Where their army is dead. Ours is broken and scattered. Dead as far as an organised military force is concerned.

At best their remnants will rally civil populace into semi organized pockets of resistance. Like their lashkars.

And please man. You cannot go up against automatic weapons with UP and MP made kattas. They are more liable to blow up in your hands or face first. And most are single use at best.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Poona and PCMC together is now blowing on 10 million. Which means around 3+ million military age men. At least.

I am not saying that small number of guns are enough. Il even Pakistan doesn't give guns to everyone but only the rich landlords have guns. The poor in Pakistan song have guns as landlords dear the that will turn shayad them using the guns. So, even in countries like Pakistan, guns can't be made available to everyone for obvious reasons. USA also refused permit for automatic weapons. There has to be balance between external and internal threats. Guns are to eat told to be used at a whim and cause irreversibly harm

You think it's easy making guns. India is yet to produce a decent sidearm for our infantry.

Not go mention tooling, dyes, material, powder, casings etc. are not something you can put in place in weeks, even months. Have you ever worked in a large scale factory environment

India matters ak47 type stamped guns. They don't need does and other casting tools. INSAS and AK203 are all based on AK47 type weapons. So, three are ready to make. The stocks, handle etc which are made with ergonomic design, plastic magazine etc have to be compromised for mass manufacturing. But that only reduces ergonomics but the functional aspects will still remain.

India doesn't focus much on side arm add it is considered to weak to be able to damage enemies in war. Nevertheless, the 9mm side arm is manufactured by India and it can be scaled up.

Thirdly training. You cannot just give guns in the hands of untrained men and expect a semblance of effectiveness when facing hardened raiders who cut their milk teeth on guns.

No, read about conscription in Israel, balkan war etc and you will see how effective untrained combatants are

 

[padamchen]

I am not saying that small number of guns are enough. Il even Pakistan doesn't give guns to everyone but only the rich landlords have guns. The poor in Pakistan song have guns as landlords dear the that will turn shayad them using the guns. So, even in countries like Pakistan, guns can't be made available to everyone for obvious reasons. USA also refused permit for automatic weapons. There has to be balance between external and internal threats. Guns are to eat told to be used at a whim and cause irreversibly harm


India matters ak47 type stamped guns. They don't need does and other casting tools. INSAS and AK203 are all based on AK47 type weapons. So, three are ready to make. The stocks, handle etc which are made with ergonomic design, plastic magazine etc have to be compromised for mass manufacturing. But that only reduces ergonomics but the functional aspects will still remain.

India doesn't focus much on side arm add it is considered to weak to be able to damage enemies in war. Nevertheless, the 9mm side arm is manufactured by India and it can be scaled up.


No, read about conscription in Israel, balkan war etc and you will see how effective untrained combatants are

@Joe Shearer @Armchair

This is essentially loosely your conscription / militia debate.

But a different scenario.

Not war fighting.

But homeland defence.

One side is dead. The other is terminally crippled.

Now it's a populace on populace free for all with zero borders.

In such scenarios, power and water are gone.

Fide logistics are broken.

The populace us now fractured, leaderless, local, area dominant. Not even regional rallying points.

The violence and anarchy is not just national now.

There is essentially no nation construct left.

@Smarana Mitra Israel everyone gets compulsory military service.

Look at the size of Israel. And their population.

You can fit all of Israel in Greater Mumbai or Greater Delhi.